This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the FAQ and RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate and remove the ads - it's free!

View Poll Results: Would you support such legislation in your own country?

Re: Ban on furs

Originally Posted by Catz Part Deux

YEah, I love how you keep making these generalizations that are totally inaccurate. I have no problems with people in Alaska trapping furs for their own purposes. However, I do have problems with the fur industry overall, and most especially fur farms.

I don't like factory farms of any kind. They are horrible polluters to the groundwater. As we've seen from recent food scares, they are dangerous. They're horrible neighbors. And, the treatment of animals is shameful.

Just because we eat animals doesn't mean that they shouldn't be treated in as humane a way as possible.

As far as banning hunting and fishing, why on earth would we want to do that? I live in the South. Most of my neighbors hunt and fish, my dad hunted and fished, I fish, my boyfriend fishes, and my kids fish. We're responsible stewards.

I know, as someone who grew up on a farm, the difference between farm practices that are responsible and respectful of animals, and those that aren't.

Re: Ban on furs

fallacies? LOL-I merely noted that those who want to ban the fur industry are often the same people who want to ban hunting

That's a fallacy called poisoning the well. Just because Ingrid Newkirk also opposes hunting and fishing does not mean that everyone who opposes the fur industry is a rabid moonbat.

and your bit about need is worthless

Because you say so?

The fact is that furs once served a valuable purpose. They were far warmer, long-lasting, and useful than almost any other product in areas with harsh winter climates. Human beings could not produce products that were the equivalent of fur. That is no longer the case. Many outdoors products are now much more effective than fur at retaining heat and protecting people from the elements. Thus, fur is no longer needed, because there are many products that are equally effective that don't require harming animals.

I will always opt for freedom over the subjective emotions of someone who wants to control what someone else does

So, if your neighbor wants to beat his wife, that's okay with you? IF your neighbor wants a coat made of puppy skins, he should be allowed to have it?

I am not willing to put people out of business just to make some feel better about themselves

More fallacies (appeal to ridicule). First, if fur was discontinued, the free market would, and already has, create similar status items for people with more money than intellect. The people currently employed in the fur industry could pursue making those items. Secondly, we have broad animal protection statutes in this country. Expanding them to fur animals would be logical. Protecting dogs and cats, while allowing minks and foxes to be abused is morally inconsistent. Lastly, you're a proponent of limiting MANY behaviors for moral reasons. Thus, you're being inconsistent on this issue.

Re: Ban on furs

That's a fallacy called poisoning the well. Just because Ingrid Newkirk also opposes hunting and fishing does not mean that everyone who opposes the fur industry is a rabid moonbat.

Because you say so?

The fact is that furs once served a valuable purpose. They were far warmer, long-lasting, and useful than almost any other product in areas with harsh winter climates. Human beings could not produce products that were the equivalent of fur. That is no longer the case. Many outdoors products are now much more effective than fur at retaining heat and protecting people from the elements. Thus, fur is no longer needed, because there are many products that are equally effective that don't require harming animals.

So, if your neighbor wants to beat his wife, that's okay with you? IF your neighbor wants a coat made of puppy skins, he should be allowed to have it?

More fallacies (appeal to ridicule). First, if fur was discontinued, the free market would, and already has, create similar status items for people with more money than intellect. The people currently employed in the fur industry could pursue making those items. Secondly, we have broad animal protection statutes in this country. Expanding them to fur animals would be logical. Protecting dogs and cats, while allowing minks and foxes to be abused is morally inconsistent. Lastly, you're a proponent of limiting MANY behaviors for moral reasons. Thus, you're being inconsistent on this issue.

beating another person violates HUMAN rights

killing a mink for fur is no different to the MINK than killing a cow for beef

as long as mink are killed in a humane manner its hard to claim its ok to kill cattle so people can eat beef but not mink so people can wear fur==no one is justifying abuse but I suspect minks are treated better than chickens

Banning fur would be a step towards banning meat-I don't want to give the PETA clowns any momentum. Again the issue isn't forcing fur farms to treat animals humanely but outright BANNING the industry no matter how it is run

what do I want to limit? telling libs they cannot take other peoples' wealth is not a limitation on anyone's rights.

Re: Ban on furs

Originally Posted by TurtleDude

are puppies somehow different than minks? the chances of that selling is about slim to zero though

So, as a country, we already have standards for humane treatment of fur-bearing mammals. Correct? Expanding those protections to close relatives of dogs (coyote, foxes), as well as other mammals is not out of line with our existing standards for humane and ethical treatment of animals.

Your argument that fur should not be outlawed for moral reasons has been debunked.

It is ALREADY a criminal act to abuse animals. Protecting fur animals would be consistent with this stance.

Furthermore, we've had those standards for at least a hundred years WITHOUT banning meat-eating. Which renders one of your other arguments moot.

IS this really the best you can do, throw out a bunch of fallacious nonsense riddled with grammatical errors?